Top Law Schools

First of all, I really appreciate your help! I'm taking Dec test, and I'm getting really nervous! Here are my questions on LR of PT #50.

16.
Now I see how C can be the correct answer, but then why not B? I guess there are two factors that differentiate the first group with the second one: 1) the existence of a shopping list 2) purchasing items on sale. (C) is about the second factor, but (B) also attacks the first factor. I thought it was intuitive, as I read (B), that those without shopping lists were bound to buy more than they need, thus spending much more than their counterpart.


20.
I crossed out the rest three, and I spent long time choosing between C and E. I ended up choosing C, thinking that what the supermarkets did wasn't exactly 'Manipulation of People', but rather manipulation of shoppers' passing routes or something. Manipulation of people sounded too much, or out of scope.. I don't know. If they can end up alienating customers instead of tempting them to pass by displays, wouldn't C be an appropriate proposition?


23.
I chose A. (Now that I read C, C definitely seems to be a correct one. ) The stimulus suggests that the correlation between melatonin and insomnia is weak for those without insomnia. If the correlation between melatonin and insomnia for those with insomnia, which is what A is about, is weaker than that of those without insomnia, which is already a weak correlation, then wouldn't it strengthen the argument that there isn't much correlation between melatonin and insomnia? Is this the case that both could be answers, but one is stronger than the other?

Thank you!

BTW, you might want to remove the text from your post - LSAC doesn't take kindly to posting question text.

16. (B) is an attractive answer, but this would impact the number of items purchased, not the amount spent on those items, and the number of items purchased, which remained steady, is not of primary relevance here.

20. The key word in (C) is "fail." Nowhere in the argument does the author indicate that the plan fails. It only says that such schemes can alienate customers. We might connect the dots ourselves and assume that alienating customers means a failed plan, but that would be going to far. After all, it's very possible that the plan works -- customers walk all the way to the back to pick up a loaf of bread, pass by a tempting candy display, and then end up buying a bunch of candy. Maybe this customer is frustrated by the long walk to the bread section, and maybe this customer has been alienated, but the plan has still worked!

What's up with the supermarket theme?

I'll take a look at 23 in a sec.

23. (A) is attractive, but you don't know if the reason for the different levels of correlation is because of some other factor. Maybe the studies were conducted differently, leading to a difference in correlation. Perhaps more importantly, a weak or strong correlation doesn't prove causation. Something could have a weak level of correlation with X but still cause it (albeit not all the time), and something could always be correlated with X but actually be an effect of it, not its cause.

(C) focuses in on the effect of the drug on specific individuals. Effect = causation.

Thank you! don't worry about the supermarket thing. I got your point! (and I deleted the question stimulus from the thread)